Hadi Davarinia

The plaintiffs in a proposed consumer class action regarding alleged engine defects in Ford vehicles sought approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Woodsford.

The court found the agreement necessary to facilitate access to justice, noting the high costs of class proceedings and expert evidence.

The agreement provided Woodsford with a 10% return on recovery, which the court found reasonable and on par with the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The motion was granted, and the funding agreement was approved.

Three law firms brought competing carriage motions to represent a class of shareholders of Canopy Growth Corporation in a securities misrepresentation class action.

The court evaluated the competing claims under s. 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court granted carriage to the Dziedziejko action, finding that its longer class period, which included thousands of additional shareholders based on prior financial misrepresentations, better served the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification without sacrificing efficiency.

The competing Leonard and Twidale actions were stayed.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant mining company made secondary market misrepresentations by failing to disclose the negative opinions of one of its mining consultants regarding a mineral resource estimate.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action, finding that the consultant's opinions were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and based on unreliable data.

The court held that the defendants were not obliged to disclose unreliable information, meaning there was no omission of a material fact.

In the alternative, the court found that the defendants satisfied the reasonable investigation defence under the Securities Act.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion to approve a $700,000 settlement in a securities class action against the defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of litigation and the overlapping U.S. settlement that covered most class members.

The court also approved class counsel's fees and a cy-près distribution of the net settlement funds to two investor protection clinics, as direct distribution was uneconomical.

However, the court denied the representative plaintiff's request for a $15,000 honorarium, finding her contributions did not go beyond what is typically expected, and directed those funds to the cy-près recipients.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent for leave to proceed with a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and for certification of the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes.

The parties reached a settlement of $700,000 to resolve allegations that the defendant pharmaceutical company made misrepresentations regarding antitrust investigations, its generic business, and the withdrawal of a product.

The court granted leave, certified the class action for settlement purposes, approved the notices, and appointed class counsel as the notice administrator.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation as statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and to dismiss the proposed class action.

The plaintiff had commenced a proposed class action for secondary market misrepresentations following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered his claim by 2010, but did not plead fraudulent misrepresentation until 2019.

The court held it was plain and obvious the claim was statute barred and struck it.

As the plaintiff was disqualified from being a representative plaintiff for the remaining truncated statutory claims, the entire action was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed securities class action against the defendant alleging secondary market misrepresentations regarding its operations in Argentina.

After being unable to retrieve crucial documents due to pending criminal and regulatory investigations in Argentina, the plaintiff moved for a consent order to dismiss the action without costs.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the interests of the putative class members would not be prejudiced.

The plaintiff moved for settlement approval, certification for settlement purposes, and fee approval in a class action for secondary market misrepresentation against Nobilis Health Corp. The proposed settlement involved abandoning the appeal of a previously dismissed certification motion and dismissing the action against Nobilis, which was effectively judgment-proof.

The court approved the settlement, finding it in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's additional fee request of $100,000 and a cy-près distribution of the remaining trust funds to the Class Proceedings Fund, but declined to award an honourarium to the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act to bring a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation against the defendant corporation, and to certify the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made material misrepresentations in its financial statements, which were later restated.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff had no reasonable possibility of success because the specific misrepresentations pleaded were not material to a reasonable investor, and the alleged corrective disclosure did not relate to the pleaded misrepresentations.

Consequently, the certification motion was also dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to bring a statutory misrepresentation class action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act against MDC Partners Inc. and its former executives.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made material misrepresentations by failing to disclose an SEC subpoena, an internal investigation into executive expenses, and other accounting issues.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that none of the alleged omissions or misstatements were material facts that would have significantly altered the total mix of information available to a reasonable investor, particularly given that the company's auditors never withdrew their clean audit opinions or required a restatement of financial statements.

Following the certification of a class action for primary market misrepresentation and breach of contract, the plaintiff sought costs against a defendant who consented to certification shortly before the scheduled motion.

The defendant argued there should be no order as to costs or costs in the cause.

The court found that the defendant's late consent necessitated additional work by the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff costs of $10,000 plus HST in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a proposed securities class action for settlement purposes.

The action alleged misrepresentations regarding mineral resource estimates.

Following a recent legal decision that would likely render the plaintiff's statutory claim statute-barred, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the defendants would pay $250,000 to the class.

The court found that all criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the motion.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against a mining corporation, its executives, and its underwriters for misrepresentations in a short form prospectus related to a secondary public offering.

The corporate defendants consented to certification of the statutory misrepresentation claims.

However, the underwriters opposed certification of the common law negligent misrepresentation and negligence claims against them.

The court certified the action against the corporate defendants but dismissed the certification motion against the underwriters, finding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the inevitability of individual trials on reliance and damages, and that the negligence claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as it was subsumed by the negligent misrepresentation claim and did not establish a novel duty of care.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that the plaintiff's proposed class action claims for secondary market misrepresentations under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act were statute-barred.

The court found that 11 of the 14 alleged misrepresentations occurred more than three years before the action was commenced and were therefore statute-barred under s. 138.14.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that s. 138.3(6) could save the claims by treating them as a single continuous misrepresentation.

However, the court found that the remaining three misrepresentation claims were not necessarily statute-barred, as the plaintiff had served a notice of motion for leave before the limitation period expired, allowing for potential reliance on the nunc pro tunc doctrine.